The Kyiv Security Forum is Ukraine's equivalent of Estonia's Lennart Meri Security Conference, organized by the International Center for Defense and Security. It was founded by former Ukrainian Prime Minister (2014–2016) Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

In recent days, we've seen U.S. President Donald Trump not on social media, but engaged in real diplomacy: first, a meeting in Alaska (with Vladimir Putin – ed.), followed by a meeting (with Ukrainian and European leaders – ed.) at the White House. At the same time, he has already begun speaking not just about a ceasefire, but about the need to reach a full-fledged peace agreement. How do you assess Trump's role at this moment? Are we truly approaching the end of hostilities?

First, I'd like to congratulate Estonia — I know you celebrated your Independence Day on August 20 (Day of Restoration of Independence – ed.) So you are independent, we are independent; our independence depends on yours and yours on ours. And I hope that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, as the leader of the free world, wants to and will do everything in his power to ensure that Ukraine remains a sovereign and independent state.

Speaking of the American administration, I believe we witnessed a historic moment when European leaders entered the Oval Office. And after President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin, who stands accused of war crimes, our European friends and partners succeeded in convincing the president of the United States of the need to support Ukraine, of the importance of the European Union and the U.S. holding a unified position toward Putin and that this position must absolutely align with Ukraine.

To answer your question — we urgently need the United States. Without the U.S., it will be extremely difficult for Ukraine to win this war and preserve its statehood. That's why the U.S. role and presence are decisive. The United States, together with European nations and the members of the Ramstein Group (the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, an international coalition aiding Ukraine in countering Russian aggression – ed.), has the capacity to secure Ukraine's independence.

Of course, Ukraine's independence is ultimately based on the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people. But we need support. You can see for yourself that relations with the new American administration are not easy. Still, I would be extremely cautious about making statements on Estonian Television, because unnecessary emotion undermines the outcomes we must achieve.

A few days ago, Donald Trump posted a message criticizing his predecessor, saying that Ukraine doesn't just need offensive weapons to defend itself, but also to strike Russia. And I pray to God that actions will follow this post. Because Vladimir Putin pays no attention to messages, summits, statements, declarations or social media posts. He pays attention only to actions.

For me, those actions mean a concrete package of measures — starting with additional military and financial aid to Ukraine, which I hope the U.S. administration, together with the European Union, will adopt in a timely manner, and continuing with primary and secondary sanctions, along with extremely strict monitoring of their enforcement, as well as cooperation with those currently helping to fund Russia's war machine. These include China, as the main supporter, India and even some NATO member states. For example, Hungary, which generally plays the role of a Trojan horse in both the EU and NATO and today acts as Putin's envoy in our common camp.

So, in the wake of the meeting between European leaders and the White House, we need concrete steps. All the statements were positive, and the meeting itself was historic — but now, to achieve a historic victory, we need historic decisions. Actions, not statements or posts.

At the Washington meeting and in its aftermath, the issue of territorial concessions or land swaps seemed to recede into the background. The main focus shifted to Ukraine's future security guarantees. Does this mean that Kyiv has accepted the loss of territory, even if only temporarily, and is now focusing on the post-war security architecture?

To me, the discussion about security guarantees in the absence of peace seems odd. I've always believed that peace should come first — a ceasefire or a comprehensive peace agreement, meaning a formal deal to end the war — and only then should we talk about security guarantees. I believe there's a flaw in the logic here. Security guarantees must be discussed and developed, yes, but they should be the result of a ceasefire and a long-term, just peace — not the starting point.

Do you know how the war criminal Putin sees it? Believe me, he laughs at this. We need to focus on the main objective — how to force Moscow to make concessions and sign a peace agreement, and only then ensure the implementation of that agreement with security guarantees, in exactly that order. We should not be focusing on how to ensure security that we do not yet have. This is a case of concept substitution.

It's great that there is a coalition of the willing (a group of countries committed to providing military support to Ukraine – ed.), and that's very important. It's also important to discuss what those security guarantees should look like. But could we first discuss how we will put pressure on Moscow to achieve either a ceasefire or a peace agreement? In my view, we should have started with a ceasefire. But unfortunately, the war criminal succeeded in convincing the leader of the free world that an immediate comprehensive peace agreement is needed.

And why did he (Putin – ed.) resume discussions around an all-encompassing peace treaty? Because what he wants is Ukraine's surrender under the guise of that so-called peace agreement. He has not backed down from a single one of the capitulation terms he set out in Belarus and later in Istanbul.

How would you comment on reports that Russia is prepared to freeze the front line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts if Ukraine agrees to make territorial concessions and withdraw its forces from Donetsk oblast?

The entire story about possible territorial concessions isn't coming from the Kremlin — I haven't heard a single official statement from today's Ribbentrop, Foreign Minister Lavrov, indicating they're ready to change their position. Nor have we heard anything like that from his boss, today's Hitler — Vladimir Putin.

In other words, we're talking to ourselves, convincing ourselves that new conditions have emerged. But no such new conditions have appeared in Moscow. It's crucial to face reality, to accept it and not to live in a fantasy world. We must understand that Moscow is not prepared to make any concessions. What does it want? It wants concessions from Ukraine. It leaks information through various channels, suggesting it would settle for the Donbas — but in reality, it doesn't just want the Donbas.

What it really wants is to cross another "red line" and force Ukraine to say: "Fine, we're willing to give up Donbas." Then Moscow will say: "Oh, excellent! But let us remind you that, illegally and illegitimately — and in violation of international law — we have added four more of your oblasts, along with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, into our constitution. Now you must withdraw from all four of those regions and amend your own constitution accordingly. And while you're at it, you must remove your NATO membership ambitions and instead enshrine the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian language." I could go on listing demands, including one requiring that Ukraine's constitution limit the size of its armed forces to no more than 50,000 or 60,000 troops.

To me, this is International Relations 101 — it's not even at the level of a doctoral thesis. It's all so obvious. That's why I say all discussions about Ukraine making territorial concessions are, first, a violation of international law; second, a violation of Ukraine's constitution; and third, a trap set by Russia to destroy that very international law, to undermine Ukraine's constitution, to fully discredit the Ukrainian government and to totally demoralize the Ukrainian army. All while trampling all over our Western allies in the process.

And all of it with one single goal — to move forward and present ever more demands, like the ones I just described. We remember history — Munich, 1938. There was the Anschluss of Austria and the Sudetenland. We've seen all this before. We've lived through it. And we're not about to repeat these historical — not just mistakes — but crimes.

Let me give you an example from your own wonderful country — Estonia — for which I am deeply grateful. Estonia may not be the largest nation in the world by size or GDP, but in terms of helping Ukraine relative to the size of its economy, Estonia is number one. So I would remind our allies in the U.S. administration of the famous Welles Declaration (signed in 1940 by U.S. Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles – ed.), which refused to recognize the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. And time passed — and you regained your independence, as we discussed earlier. And the time will come when we, too, fully restore our sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

But right now, we must save the country. And we can only do that by refusing to repeat the historical mistakes of the past or fall into the geopolitical traps Russia is laying today. Because this will not end the hostilities. It will not end the war. It will merely be a new phase of Russia's so-called "special operation," aimed at forcing Ukraine into surrender.

I see a certain contradiction in President Zelenskyy's statements. In 2022, he ruled out negotiations with Putin, but this year, on the contrary, he has begun seeking a meeting with him. Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about the need for such a meeting. Russia has always regarded a head-of-state meeting as something that should mark the end of a conflict. In your view, could a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin truly bring the war to an end?

If anyone believes that a meeting between President Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin could result in an agreement on a just peace, they are a prisoner of their own illusions. Vladimir Putin, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, would only agree to meet with President Zelenskyy under one condition — that Zelenskyy is ready to sign Ukraine's capitulation, in the exact terms the Russians already laid out in Belarus and Istanbul. Otherwise, he is not willing to meet — something his foreign minister has explicitly confirmed.

As for Volodymyr Zelenskyy's position, I believe he is doing everything right. Where did the idea come from that a meeting with Putin is necessary? It emerged when U.S. President Donald Trump stated that such a meeting should take place. And if, at that moment, Ukraine's president had suddenly said, "I won't meet"? That would've immediately handed a propaganda victory to Putin.

That's why I think Ukraine has now adopted the absolutely correct approach: the Americans suggest something — we agree. A meeting of delegations? Fine. Phone calls? Fine. A meeting with Putin? Fine. We are ready and open to dialogue.

This is an entirely reasonable position that dismantles Putin's narrative and prevents the American administration from claiming that Ukraine is the one refusing peace.

But couldn't the American administration say that Ukraine doesn't want peace if Ukraine refuses to withdraw from the Donbas, as Putin demands?

I don't believe that these so-called demands appearing in the media are actually official or credibly confirmed demands from Putin. I simply don't believe it. This is all a Soviet-style KGB special operation led by Vladimir Putin — an operation of disinformation, demoralization and the creation of various traps.

Could the American administration apply pressure? I really appreciated the approach expressed during the U.S. president's recent meeting with European leaders, where they pointed out that the territory Putin is targeting — namely the Donbas — is nearly the same size as Trump's home state of Florida. And I haven't heard any recent statements from the American administration supporting what, just a few weeks ago, were quite prominent narratives about "land swaps." Because that would be territorial theft.

We need to call things by their proper names — life becomes a lot clearer that way.

The coalition of the willing includes more than 30 countries prepared to help Ukraine after the war to prevent renewed Russian aggression. Security guarantees are understood to include no limits on the size of Ukraine's armed forces, the supply of Western weapons — including long-range missiles — strengthened air defense and, eventually, the presence of multinational military contingents on Ukrainian territory. But none of this is acceptable to Russia. So why should we believe that Vladimir Putin will change his position?

No security guarantee that would genuinely ensure Ukraine's independence will ever be acceptable to Russia. Period. And our Western allies need to understand that any security guarantees agreed upon with Russia are, in fact, guarantees that the war will continue and that Russia will eventually occupy Ukraine — if not tomorrow, then the day after or ten years from now. Our international experience clearly shows this.

It is a very good thing that we have a coalition of the willing, and it's absolutely essential that these security guarantees be developed as a protocol for action in the event of a peace agreement. But right now — before we talk about guarantees — we must do everything in our power to ensure that the Ukrainian army halts Russia's advance. Only then will Ukraine — not Russia — have a strong negotiating position. Russia has been through all of this before, in 2014–2015, when it pressured Ukraine into signing the Minsk agreements. Battlefield victories are extremely important to them and it is critically important to us that we don't let them win.

But without the European Union, without the United States, without the Ramstein Group, we cannot hold out. We are standing thanks to our army, our people — and your support. Our fight is your fight. Our defense is your defense, your security. You in Estonia understand this better than anyone else. And I want everyone to understand it — including in Washington — because it concerns them most of all. In fighting us, Russia is fighting the United States. Russia has formed an alliance with China, North Korea and several other authoritarian regimes.

Today, Russia is China's battering ram, and we're talking about a reshaping of the global order. In this new world, the United States is expected to play a very different role than it did just a few years ago. So this is not only a question of our security — it's a question of the security of the United States and the entire Western world. And we, like you, have always had — and will continue to have — deep affection for the United States. We want to see it strong. Their strength is our strength and our strength is also theirs.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!